Conference Call

Jan 16, 2019 Slides


Adam Duarte, Rod Wittler, Chester Lindley, Mark Gard, Sadie Gill, Tanya Shenya, Cesar Blanco, John Kelly, Levi Johnson, Erica Meyers, Mike Beaks, Bruce McLaughlin, J.D. Wikert, Lori Smith, Matt Brown, Robin Bilski, Kimberly True, Chris Hammersmark, Corey Phillis, Mike Berry, Mike Hendrick, Flora, Doug

We began by Cesar introducing Kimberly True, who will be acting science coordinator for next 60 days. He indicated that she was very knowledgeable about salmonids and has been working in the area for a long time (Previously at Fish Health Center, expertise in salmonids.). Welcome Kimberly!

Jim is not able to participate in today's call and most likely will be unable to attend next week's in-person meeting. Adam won't be able to come in person either, but he will be calling in. Many steelhead people can't come. There was some discussion during the presentation of summaries about the lack of participation from SIT members with expertise on south delta tributaries. We are having meeting next week regardless of limitations.

Adam began by stating the call objectives and asking the group whether they wanted to score all scenarios or choose a subset of scenarios to score. Adam suggests selecting ~10 scenarios per taxa for scoring. The group then examined summaries of the SIT scenario choices (see pdf for the summaries). People need to fill out their score card by COB, Tuesday of next week.

For Chinook, popular scenarios were increase in habitat creation (perennial and seasonal), pulse flows, increase base flows, and reduce diversions, driven by fall run responses. For fall run, Upper Sacramento was most common selected location across all runs. Surprising popularity of Yolo and Sutter. This popped up because of one scenario, the North Delta rearing habitat accessibility scenario. For winter run, Battle Creek was the location that dominated. North Delta rearing also popular scenario for spring run.

Model parameter priorities survival estimates are at the top. Important missing priorities: Screw traps and spawning ground surveys monitoring that goes into calibrating the model. Rod explained that the monitoring priorities will be used to grade Charters. If the SIT identified an item as a monitoring priority, a charter that included that item would be graded higher. Matt Brown asked for summary table of missing temperature and habitat data by watershed.

The top three scenarios selected for O. mykiss were manipulate water temperatures to encourage anadromy, outplant adults above dams, and improve fish passage with water temperature manipulation be the most selected by a large margin. J.D. says that lake-like environment created by regulation has created issues. There needs to be variability in available habitat to encourage anadromy. Cesar echoes his point. The top selected model inputs/parameters were juvenile survival in tributaries and mainstem, and factors related to anadromy. Matt Brown stated that escapement data would be important.

The popular model inputs selected for Sturgeon were related to survival and habitat.

Chinook Summary

Adam asked if the increase accessibility to rearing in the North Delta is already being planned. Rod responded that yes there are actions being planned but we don't have much connection to the ecorestore program. Adam asks if this is worth scoring or will it take place no matter what. Rod says yes.

Multiple actions popular in Battle Creek. Upper Sacramento juvenile rearing.

Develop a focused list of candidate scenarios to score

J.D. brings up that he won't be scoring areas outside of his expertise and this would reduce the total amount individuals will score. Rod calculates ~700 opportunities to score. Matt Brown requests doing a few examples as a group. The group went through a few examples.

After discussion, the group decided that they would like to score all of the scenario-location combinations that were identified by SIT members with the understanding that SIT members would focus on what they were familiar with. Chris Hammersmark says it will allow people a second chance to give input. Robyn Bilski is concerned that Mokelumne doesn't show up at all because it was lumped in with the San Joaquin. Adam will revise before sending out any modifications as long as received by 5pm. Adam assured the group that not scoring a scenario will not penalize the scenario because a blank will not be treated as a zero. Adam also indicated that scores would be normalized within each person to minimize the effects of differences om scoring among SIT members. Matt asked about how to incorporate multiple runs and Adam indicated that we will provide across run scores.

Sadie will be sending out information on where the model input data are weakest and the delineation of the sections of the Sacramento River.

Cesar explained PWTs will review the output from the SIT priority process. J.D. wonders what the expectations for PWT feedback are. Cesar stated that we will give the draft priorities in order and we will interpret their feedback (thumbs up or thumbs down) and circle back with PWTs. If we get a thumbs down is up for discussion what will happen, coordinated by email. Matt Brown suggests eliminating the PWT review for this year because of rushed process. Cesar says in spite of timeline issues created by furlough he wants to give PWT two weeks review time.

New Business

Bruce McLaughlin wants fish bio or geomorphologist to give input on CVP power initiative of co-located solar power with hydro power dams. Bruce discussed some proposed plans for the CVP power initiative and his thoughts about collaboration with the SIT. SIT members are invited to contact Bruce for more information.

Matt Brown asks if it will be a Wednesday only meeting next week. Adam says the goal is to get it all done Wednesday, but can't guarantee.

Adam asked that anyone with additional scenarios to add please send them to him by COB today.